Privilege from Canadian and U.S. Perspectives: Reverence vs. Skepticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OR counsel representing U.S. businesses with global aspirations, it is no longer enough to be an expert on state and federal law.In assessing corporate risks and exposure, attorneys must be increasingly mindful of cross-border issues.While not expected to know the law of foreign jurisdictions in detail, they nevertheless need to recognize and flag issues requiring the input of qualified foreign counsel.A good example is "cross-border" attorney-client privilege, as illustrated by the 2010 Akzo Nobel decision, in which the European Court of Justice reaffirmed the European Union's (EU) problematic policy of denying privilege to inhouse counsel with respect to antitrust investigations.'Canada may not hold surprises of the magnitude of Akzo Nobel, but there are nevertheless significant aspects of the Canadian law of privilege that U.S. attorneys should know-particularly given the interconnectedness of the U.S. and Canadian economies under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).Consider the increasingly common scenario in which the general counsel of a U.S. multinational, together with external counsel, deals with a U.S. lawsuit (a class action or multi-district litigation), only to learn that a copycat class action has been launched in the Canadian courts.The U.S. legal team decides to hold a conference call with company officials in Canada-would such a conversation be shielded by attorney-client privilege in Canada?Would it make a difference if Canadian in-house or external counsel were in on the call?What if analysts or investigators involved in the U.S. defense are included?Such questions should ideally *KathrynChalmers is a senior litigation partner with Stikeman Elliott LLP, where her practice is focused primarily on general corporate commercial litigation and arbitration, including class actions, products liability and environmental litigation.She is
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".